Return to “GAME OVER: BLUE vs. RED”
I am on board with that. I've been looking back over things, and I get more bad vibes than good from Wilgy's "all the jokes" playstyle.Epignosis wrote:I don't believe you genuinely believe this.DrWilgy wrote:In my head, we've hit a point where you not being bad is harder to believe due to the ammount of "hey look I'm so civvy because of these simple reasons!!"
DrWilgy
I waited all night for it.Does Epi lose more Hillary Points for actually going through with it?G-Man wrote:-1 Hillary Points for using Hillary Points in any way relevant to the game.Epignosis wrote:I appreciate you making it easier for me to know whom to lynch next.
S~V~S is dead meat.
Maybe it just wasn't about you.Epignosis wrote:I'm not thinking clearly about things.
If a Night 1 Eloh death clears me, mafia either weren't thinking that through or don't know that dynamic.
The trouble is, I don't think there's many else on the poll who fall into that latter category.
Good thing I didn't lynch you then.Epignosis wrote:And you're not a fool.Long Con wrote:That is a good point.Epignosis wrote:If the mafia's plan was to get me lynched by killing Eloh Night 1, then they done fucked up.
Because now I'm a confirmed civilian.
If you lynch me, you are either bad or a fool.
That is a good point.Epignosis wrote:If the mafia's plan was to get me lynched by killing Eloh Night 1, then they done fucked up.
Because now I'm a confirmed civilian.
If you lynch me, you are either bad or a fool.
I believe that the correct answer is zero.Epignosis wrote:How many times have you killed Black Rock Night 1?Long Con wrote:
And, following that, he'll just disdainfully ignore your suspicion, giving you nothing. I feel like you do.Marmot wrote:Not really, I'll realize how silly it sounds if I do.thellama73 wrote:Would you be willing to talk about your tinfoil a little?Marmot wrote:All of my suspicions are sincere.thellama73 wrote:Metalmarsh89, I see you have placed your vote on Epignosis. Is that a sincere suspicion?
This one is just a sincere tinfoil.
Cowards.DrWilgy wrote:Baddie team is JoH, Sawyer, DF, and Llamotnosis Con.
Yay! Finally.Jackofhearts2005 wrote:Spoiler alert: We're killing LC.
Because I didn't intend to lynch her without giving her a chance to respond, that was a careless oversight on my part. Not an oversight on yours, apparently. She deserved better.Epignosis wrote:That's right. You voted for her as well. Why the double question marks?Long Con wrote:Without her even having a chance to respond to the votes??Epignosis wrote:I just want to be clear I had no intention of changing my vote unless I saw Mac or someone try to make it a tie. I was married to the idea of S~V~S being bad. Her posts here marked all the boxes for me, and I thought I had this one.
Without her even having a chance to respond to the votes??Epignosis wrote:I just want to be clear I had no intention of changing my vote unless I saw Mac or someone try to make it a tie. I was married to the idea of S~V~S being bad. Her posts here marked all the boxes for me, and I thought I had this one.
DrWilgy wrote:Are you really though LC? How will you male sure she didn't die in vain?Long Con wrote:S~V~S, I'm really, really sorry. I didn't realize the poll ended so early. I just wanted to put some pressure on you to come in and respond to the accusations, but if I had gotten in before the poll closed, I would have changed my vote to Jack upon seeing that you hadn't even been on to respond to the votes.S~V~S wrote:Wow. Seriously fucking lame. Good luck civs, you gonna need itThat was so sucky, I'm sorry.
Leave that to me, Doc. I have a trick or two up my sleeve.
Well, equally vanilla... but higher up, closer to Clinton herself!S~V~S, I'm really, really sorry. I didn't realize the poll ended so early. I just wanted to put some pressure on you to come in and respond to the accusations, but if I had gotten in before the poll closed, I would have changed my vote to Jack upon seeing that you hadn't even been on to respond to the votes.S~V~S wrote:Wow. Seriously fucking lame. Good luck civs, you gonna need it
That was so sucky, I'm sorry.
I was kinda thinking S~V~S might have something to say before it was over.Why is that more probable than wrong on both?DrWilgy wrote:I don't consider DF's interactipn with SVS to be that of two who are on a team, yet I'm suspicious of both of them for similar reasons. I'm proably wrong on 1 and right on the other.Epignosis wrote:DrWilgy wrote:Just DF's interaction with SVS.Epignosis wrote:What gives you that impression?DrWilgy wrote: Besides, I don't believe SVS and DF are ok n the same team. If SVS flips civilian I can lynch DF w/o second thought.I need you to elaborate on this. What's the connection?DrWilgy wrote:Baddies are JoH, SVS/DF, Quin/Sawyer, and llamotnosis.
Linki - Marmot my vote wasn't sneaky! I stated so in the chat. SVS is a better option to Jack, but I have my doubts on this one. I feel that Baddie SVS generally goes harder than what we see here but I could be wrong. I skimmed her ISO and I found that she had no strong suspicions/jack interactions and I'm semi-justifying my vote to myself that way. Besides, I don't believe SVS and DF are ok n the same team. If SVS flips civilian I can lynch DF w/o second thought.
Sure he does, he makes it look like he's cool with lynching her. If she's his teammate, that WIFOMy bluffery can definitely be a gain.Marmot wrote:DrWilgy and jack both snuck in with votes on SVS. That's interesting.
Jack would get no credit if he voted on the lynch of a mafia member. He doesn't have a lot to gain by putting his vote there if SVS is his teammate, especially to tie the lynch the way it is.
But hey, the day isn't over yet, things could happen.
Quin: "No, you don't" what?Quin wrote:Oh.S~V~S wrote:I wasn't talking about drawbacks in YOUR argument; I was talking aboutQuin wrote:No. But if I find it suspicious I'm going to say so. I want a dialogue.S~V~S wrote:Why? Are you always so sure of your own opinion that you can't see the drawbacks in your own argument?Quin wrote:Discrediting your own opinion on an argument while still making a point of giving it never looks good to me.notsawyer540 wrote:Me too!S~V~S wrote:I'm a redhead- I have no soul
I don't really find Quin suspicious. But then again this is only my second game on this site and there are only a couple people I know well enough to make judgments on. Getting a civ read on LC. Not really sure if going after low posters is a good idea here, but I don't really have any better ideas yet, so it may come to that for me.
I'm a civ and I support Hillary Clinton.
Other than that, it usually takes me a few cycles to start putting things together. If Ron Swanson were in this game, I'd say he's guilty as shit for three days before realizing it was Donna right before I'm killed!
Anyway I'm gonna get back to watching TV and nursing this hangover. I'll check back in periodically.
What are the drawbacks in my argument?
You saying you found it suspicious that he was qualifying his opinion. It was essentially a rhetorical question. "Are you always so sure of your own opinions that you find someone who can see both sides of a suspicion questionable?".
No, I don't. But I do find the act of discrediting one's own opinion to be innately suspicious. There's a difference between that and just not being sure.
This intrigues me. I'll vote S~V~S as well.Epignosis wrote:S~V~S wrote:This.notsawyer540 wrote:So is Ted Cruz dead or do we have to lynch him day 2? It says "he is" in the post where it says "he was" for Assange. So I'm assuming he have to lynch Jack next.
And good job all!!
I will read back this evening, good news is while I had a long day today, I do NOT have jury duty, so I should have no worries re Mafia time.I find these reactions to be incompatible. Why act celebratory at first and then ask about the alignment of the dead?S~V~S wrote:So Scotty was an Indy? But Jack is a Republican? So rereading him, I guess.
Too bad we had to do this on the Day 1 lynch, or there would have been more to read into. After that, it's like being a rolechecker reading into a baddie who knows his role has been checked.Epignosis wrote:No deal. I don't understand how it's harder to lynch Jack later. If this were a job or side mission, I might agree with you, but this is a heist, and I don't believe the mafia will win because an outed teammate is left alone for a while.S~V~S wrote:He's probably interacting with Epi since Epi is in charge of saving him.Quin wrote:One benefit to lynching Jack today is to remove the WIFOM factor from his posts. Since he became confirmed he's only interacted with Epi. I refuse to read into that but I can see it being argued one way or another.
I realise we shouldn't be arguing about Jack right now, but that needed to be said
Let's make a deal; if we lynch anyone other than Jack, and they are not bad, we lynch Jack next, no arguments, no questions. I have played whole games as an outed baddie and the longer you let it go on, the harder it is to get rid of the outed one. If we lynch someone who IS a baddie, I will shut up and tow the party line re lynching Jack.
Although, again, I would much rather lynch Jack.
Here's an exercise: Jack isn't outed. You are a role checker who caught him. Now you're looking for his team. Who are they?
I don't think I have that strong of an interrogator stance. I just think Llama is bad. A strong interrogator stance, to me, would be an interrogator of many.TheFloyd73 wrote:I know any excuse for low posting is going to be held against me, so I won't bother exclaiming one.
From my brief reads, I can take this:
As already stated, Wilgy lost his usual cherpiness when Jack's role was revealed. That's a subtle detail that's well-pointed out. I don't feel implied to label him as scum at this stage, but I'm open to any change.
With Jack's role revealed, I can understand the benefits of lynching and not lynching him. When I have the time, I might investigate his associations and statements before Night 1.
Heck, Long Con holds a strong stance of being the interrogator. It makes it difficult to assume his alliance. I've seen it in other games as well. I know I'm probably stating the obvious, but doesn't anyone else think likewise with me?
Or maybe you know and you don't have to really try to see?thellama73 wrote:Maybe I'm just better at seeing things than you are?Long Con wrote:You're damn right I'm not on his team. But I don't see that in those two extremely minimal "interactions".
Where's the line of fire? Am I supposed to follow Epi on his DFaraday suspicion? He might be right, he's very convincing.FZ. wrote:At the time, your vote didn't appear, only your post. Hence my question.Long Con wrote:Do you know of any method through which my vote would become more real?FZ. wrote:Is your vote for real LC?
Epi, what is your perception of LC this game? It feels like he's hinted at knowing something or responsible for something concerning you. Do you think it's genuine? His vote for llama for a second time feels like he's trying to find reasons to vote for someone who's not really suspected at this point, and for really small things, thus being able to stay out of the line of fire.
I don't really get a bad feeling from him. Green on my rainbow list.FZ. wrote:I kind of keep going back and forth with LC. There are moments where he seems like a civ, and then moments where he really makes me worried.
Do you know of any method through which my vote would become more real?FZ. wrote:Is your vote for real LC?
thellama73 wrote:This is the one I was referring to, LC.
Spoiler: show
That is Jack quoting a long post and throwing out a one-liner. It's not a "lengthy interaction between Jack and Long Con". I don't see why you would read that and be convinced that Jack and I aren't teammates. All this is is Jack butting into a conversation with Mac for a laugh.Jackofhearts2005 wrote:I am also throwing a pity party over a thing. Don't vote for me, LC.Long Con wrote:I would never cast a vote until I was 100% sure that the pity party was over.
Are you sure you've got the right guy? Isn't this the only interaction?thellama73 wrote:Also, I won't quote it because it's lengthy, but Jack's interactions with Long Con make me think LC is NOT on his team.
Jackofhearts2005 wrote:So we should probably lynch you regardless of your alignment then?Long Con wrote:notsawyer540 wrote:I'm afraid I don't see what you're getting at. I was saying that I didn't see an argument or any evidence as to why people thought you were bad, but qualifying it with the fact that I don't know many of the people here as well as the rest of you know each other. I've known LC for nearly a decade, which is my basis for the civ read I have on him. But I've also known him long enough to know he can't be trusted.Quin wrote:Discrediting your own opinion on an argument while still making a point of giving it never looks good to me.I totally betrayed and murdered my Civ BTSC team for more power.
FZ post worth noting.FZ. wrote:Too easy.Scotty wrote:Everyone's checked in, so...ima thinking one of the low posters is definitely bad.
Jackofhearts, I see you.
Also, as a side note, I might have given Jack the whole game just for showing me this gif, one of my new faves. So, thanks Scotty again.Jackofhearts2005 wrote:DrWilgy wrote:Hiii Jaaaaaaack, do you want to conquer the world with me?Jackofhearts2005 wrote:They said I could keep my doctor, but I now see I'm stuck with Wigly.DrWilgy wrote:Hi everyone! I'm a doctor and Epignosis is bad!
Sorry guys, that's the best I got, tonight.
I'm sure that would have been quite impossible.Marmot wrote:It's definitely not me, I woulda killed Epignosis Night 1.Epignosis wrote:I cut out the naked mammal even though Eloh is dead.Jackofhearts2005 wrote:What's a townie Marmot look like?Scotty wrote:This might be cliche but I'm not thrilled with any of Marmot's 7 posts so far. Granted, that was Day 0. But he could probably shave the fluff, that naked rat
We know this is a fabricated question, because either Jack knows MM is a civilian or he doesn't care for the answer because MM isn't.
Given that Scotty had already implied his reason for not liking MM's posts (they're devoid of game-related purpose), this by itself looks suspicious to me. However, subsequent MM interactions make me less inclined to believe they are working together.
I do believe, on the other hand, that Jack's exchange with Scotty about other people opened the door for this pointless question:
Scotty never got back to answer about DF. For the same reason outlined above, Jack obviously wasn't interested in learning anything about DF (notice that he never got an answer and never asked anybody else about DF). Given what was already said about DF's tendency toward being a low poster (what Scotty said and Jack's mention of DF getting replaced), and given that Jack only asked this specific question about MM and DF, I believe one of them is on his team.Jackofhearts2005 wrote:Tell me more about DF's meta. He made it like 3 posts before getting replaced in the only game we've played together.
Between the two of them, I'd say it's DF.
All forms of advantage.Epignosis wrote:Or a disadvantage. Does he use his vote to expose a teammate? Try to frame someone? Abstain?Long Con wrote:The reason we have to lynch Jack today is because his vote will give the Mafia a greater advantage.
As long as he promises never to politics again.S~V~S wrote:Maybe they will take you back in Calgary, your home town, when you have to leave here.
Congrats - that sounded like it would have been AWFUL.S~V~S wrote:This.notsawyer540 wrote:So is Ted Cruz dead or do we have to lynch him day 2? It says "he is" in the post where it says "he was" for Assange. So I'm assuming he have to lynch Jack next.
And good job all!!
I will read back this evening, good news is while I had a long day today, I do NOT have jury duty, so I should have no worries re Mafia time.
Yeah... like, thank you Scotty for your wonderful baddie finding efforts, and also for dying when you did.MacDougall wrote:That is one dangerous indy role. Thanks Scotty though for vindicating me.
Your body was dumped in a mine in Siberia.I counted a little more.Epignosis wrote:But now there's 20.5 Hillary Clintons on this page. Gah! My eyes!Elohcin wrote:Yes...I clicked on it and saw it again just now. Gah!thellama73 wrote:Now you're going to get Eloh's vote.Marmot wrote:I'm voting Scotty for this atrocity of a post.
Also on my phone as my computer is being a butt-hole...So I can only do one quote at a time...Still reading.
thellama73 wrote:This post is pretty flippant, but in fairness to you, I think I keep confusing you with Notsawyer, since I don't know either of you. I can't tell you apart. Please try to be more distinctive.Jackofhearts2005 wrote:Can you be more specific?thellama73 wrote:In answer to Epi's question, my vote for Quin is based on a Day 0 ping, odd, uncharacteristic behavior, which I tend to associate with baddies. I am also perturbed by Quin's unwillingness to take my vote seriously. I never really intended to leave my vote there, though. I haven't decided where to move it yet, but Notsawyer, for being wishy-washy, might get it. And JackofHearts, for being annoying and not answering questions seriously, might get it.
I don't think there's a real question I've been asked that I didn't take seriously.
Convince me you aren't just being opportunistic by saying you might vote for one of the players who already has two votes for no real reason.
